Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Lex Parsimoniae]

A quick question for those in the know - did the decision to outfit the AOPVs with a conventional drive train vice athe Azipod system have anything to do with a desire to have a common Bridge and control architecture across the Navy's fleet?

No - cut due to cost.  The propulsion plant is proposed to be diesel-electric twin shafts with bolt on propellers, similar to existing CCG icebreakers. 

The current plan is for 6 AOPS maximum but that is still too expensive for the $ allocated which was in 2007 dollars.  Delays due to alignment with the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) timeline will also reduce the numbers of hulls as will paying for the NSPS which came in the form of a tax on all ship construction projects.  I would be surprised if more than 4 are ordered.

Many commentators miss the fact that the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) funding also includes building a deep water naval port at Nanisivik.  The other constraint is that the navy must crew AOPS from the current personnel establishment, which is smaller than when AOPS was announced due to the loss of the Huron billets to the air force and army.  Your guess as to where the AOPS crew billets will come from is as good as mine.

Attached is the latest artist's impression...notice anything that has been down-sized?

 

[FSTO]

While they were on-time, the Orcas were a mess when delivered.  Corrosion and dissimilar metals issues IIRC.  Be that as it may, building cadet and navigation training boats to a proven design with no combat systems is a far cry from building complex warships and integrating combat systems from multiple suppliers.  Just my  :2c:

Yep and they were all brought into drydock and fixed with no lawsuits or other BS. Crap happens, you fix it and move on. Not like a certain yard on the St Lawrence that we regularly had to steal our ships from to get them finished.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

Yep and they were all brought into drydock and fixed with no lawsuits or other BS.

Fixed at Crown expense.

I'm not playing one shipyard against another - merely pointing out that playing dirty politics with ship building is par for the course for all the major yards.  WMG can count the number of MPs in BC from the government side of the house just as well as we can - hence the whine on their bearing.  They're not trying to win the contracts but rather kill them all together by poisoning public opinion on naval ship building so that their competition don't win either.  Easy to do when you've got a $1.5 billion submarine contract to tide your shipyard over for the next 15 years.

 

[Kirkhill]

.... They're not trying to win the contracts but rather kill them all together by poisoning public opinion on naval ship building so that their competition don't win either. ....

I hope you're wrong on this one Lex but I can't bring myself to rule it out.  I have seen major West Coast fishing companies, WMGs customers, playing beggar thy neighbour in the bad old days of the Alaskan pollock derbys.  It was important to catch all the fish you could, even if you couldn't process them all efficiently and had to dump excess waste overboard, just so that they other fleets wouldn't have any fish to catch. Therefore they not only deprived their competitors of revenue but also drove up the value of the fish that they had on hand.

It would seem to answer the question of why we started with a "cheap" and effective Norwegian solution and now we are asking for a less capable beast that will cost more.  The more you ask to be deleted the higher the price seems to climb.

If the Government cant get an honest quote from these three yards maybe it should consider "nationalization" or going offshore.

 

[RC]

No - cut due to cost.  The propulsion plant is proposed to be diesel-electric twin shafts with bolt on propellers, similar to existing CCG icebreakers. 

The current plan is for 6 AOPS maximum but that is still too expensive for the $ allocated which was in 2007 dollars.  Delays due to alignment with the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) timeline will also reduce the numbers of hulls as will paying for the NSPS which came in the form of a tax on all ship construction projects.  I would be surprised if more than 4 are ordered.

Many commentators miss the fact that the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) funding also includes building a deep water naval port at Nanisivik.  The other constraint is that the navy must crew AOPS from the current personnel establishment, which is smaller than when AOPS was announced due to the loss of the Huron billets to the air force and army.  Your guess as to where the AOPS crew billets will come from is as good as mine.

Attached is the latest artist's impression...notice anything that has been down-sized?

The port as well as the ILS component are separate budgets from the construction budget.

The azipods were cut due to cost, which was unfortunate, but looking at the cost, the two biggest fators were the speed and the propulsion system.  The Svalbard was a 17 knot ship as well.

I've not heard anything about paying for the NSPS program with the ship budgets, unless you mean the cost of paying for whatever upgrades the chosen yards need, which will likely be the responsibility of the yards and thus I suppose you could consider as a "tax" against the programs.  Can you give any more details on what you mean by this?

There haven't been any substantial design changes since early 2009, so nothing new downsized in that rendering.  BTW, it's not really an artists impression.  It's a rendering of the completed design.  An artist's impression is usually done at the beginning of a project before there is a design and is imaginary, thus the name impression.

 

[RC]

The destroyers are being built entirely in Australia. Its the LHDs that are being built in Spain and fitted out in Australia. Due to the fact that no Australian shipyard has the capability to build 28,000 ton flat tops.

Good to know and good for the Australians.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[MarkOttawa]

RC: "Good to know"?

Australian Air Warfare Destroyer Construction in Choppy Seas
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/681/

Australia’s largest defence project begins with early construction problems

09:41 GMT, October 28, 2010 defpro.com | In April 2010, the Australian shipbuilder ASC proudly announced: “Construction of Australia’s air warfare destroyer (AWD) capability is underway, with three Australian shipyards simultaneously building destroyer blocks.” A little more than six months later, Australia’s largest defence project, with an estimated value of approximately $8 billion, had reportedly experienced its first serious setback. The simultaneous construction of AWD blocks in different Australian shipyards, which was lauded by ASC Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Steve Ludlam in April and which is a standard procedure in today’s shipbuilding business, is the origin of technical problems in this particular case.

As “The Australian” reported earlier this week, Williamstown-based shipyards of AWD subcontractor BAE Systems Australia “botched” the construction of the central keel block. The newspaper explained that the technical problems resulted from faulty welding and inadequate quality control, which led to inaccurate dimensions of the manufactured parts (see also http://goo.gl/Ei2T). Furthermore, “The Australian” reports of an alleged rift between BAE Systems Australia and the ship’s Spanish designer, Navantia. The AWD is based on the Spanish Álvaro de Bazán F100-class frigates.

The technical problems in the hull block construction of the ADW flagship HMAS Hobart, reportedly, may entail additional costs worth several million dollars and delay the project by up to six months...

...an unnamed source told the newspaper: “This is not a small problem – this is a major headache for us. This will have a ripple effect on the whole project because that hull block is critical, and if that block is delayed, then a raft of other things also get delayed.”

Full block production of HMAS Hobert is being carried out at three shipyards across Australia: ASC in Adelaide, BAE Systems in Melbourne and Forgacs in Newcastle. Each ship is made up of 31 blocks. ASC has subcontracted the construction of 65 blocks to BAE Systems and FORGACS over the life of the AWD programme. ASC will build 28 blocks, and integrate and consolidate all 93 blocks into the three warships. BAE Systems Australia won the $300 million contract to build 36 blocks in 2009

According to the Australian Department of Defence (DoD), the blocks will be transported in groups by sea, with 15 trips from BAE Systems shipyard in Melbourne and eight from the Forgacs shipyard in Newcastle...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

the cost of paying for whatever upgrades the chosen yards need, which will likely be the responsibility of the yards

And that explains the cost differential between Svalbard and the AOPS -  the Norwegians already had adequate yards. 

Thanks for the clarification RC.

Does that mean that once the yards are refitted that the cost of building future vessels will fall?  Should the various shipbuilding programmes be rebid once the yards are upgraded?

 

[Stoker]

Whatever they're going to do I wish they would make a decision and start cutting steel. I would like to get commissioning crew on one of these ships before I retire!

 

[RC]

And that explains the cost differential between Svalbard and the AOPS -  the Norwegians already had adequate yards. 

Thanks for the clarification RC.

Does that mean that once the yards are refitted that the cost of building future vessels will fall?  Should the various shipbuilding programmes be rebid once the yards are upgraded?

There are a large number of differences between the designs as well.  The AOPS design is loosely based on the Svalbard, but the requirements came 100% from the GOC based on their needs.  Svalbard was a reference, but not a parent.

It does mean that the cost will fall.  There should be improvement in infrastructure costs, labour efficiency, risk management, purchasing negotiations, and so on.  I can't speculate on how the government will manage costs, nor on how the yards will bid the NSPS, but I expect both will try to quantify the cost improvements and negotiate the programmes on that basis.

RC: "Good to know"?

Australian Air Warfare Destroyer Construction in Choppy Seas
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/681/

Mark
Ottawa

I hope you aren't insinuating that BAE Systems is not a credible builder of naval vessels or that the Austrlians would have been better off having it made in Romania?

Would you like to hear about the time my friend had a steel dock building fabricated in Romania and it was shipped back stitch welded together with all of the fillet welds done in silicone sealant painted silver?  Cheaper isn't always better and even the best yards can have a few quality problems on a new product.

Both BAE in Williamstown and Forgacs are capable yards (I don't know the third one mentioned) and I'm sure they'll get this sorted out.  I'm equally sure the media blew this out of proportion and/or got it completely wrong.  You have to realize that while all three are probably capable, they are also competitors.  They will blow each others slip ups, that you would normally never hear about, up as much as possible for commercial reasons.

 

[NavyShooter]

I'll ditto in with Stoker....it'd be nice for this to get moving ahead....they've been talking AOPS for what....5 years-ish now?

It'll be nice if they get it right, but it'd be great if they'd get started!!!!!

NS

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

The port as well as the ILS component are separate budgets from the construction budget.

Semantics.  The radar budget is different from the RHIB budget but it all comes from the vote 5 allocation for AOPS.

I've not heard anything about paying for the NSPS program with the ship budgets, unless you mean the cost of paying for whatever upgrades the chosen yards need, which will likely be the responsibility of the yards and thus I suppose you could consider as a "tax" against the programs.

I’m talking about NSPS staff, project office, selection of yards, legal fees, etc.  Check the budget estimates and try and find a line item that covers the cost of running the NSPS.

There haven't been any substantial design changes since early 2009, so nothing new downsized in that rendering.

LOL – so you read the watermarked date too?  A fair amount has been changed in that drawing from the previous version.

BTW, it's not really an artists impression.  It's a rendering of the completed design.  An artist's impression is usually done at the beginning of a project before there is a design and is imaginary, thus the name impression.

More semantics.  This is no more the completed design than any previous version.  Every passing day means that the 2007 budget buys less and thus the project staff have to cut more.  To put it in layman’s terms, imagine ordering a 2011 VW Passat for your entire family with the budget for a 2007 VW Passat.  You’re going to have to drop the heated seats, spare tire, etc until eventually you’re down to a single VW Golf and three or four bus passes.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Lex Parsimoniae:  Which is to say that this government, like its predecessors, has no real concern with how the military (Navy) can serve any intelligent appreciation of national interests weighed against available government financial resources.  In other words, whenever possible, spend the money available to seek votes.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[RC]

Semantics.  The radar budget is different from the RHIB budget but it all comes from the vote 5 allocation for AOPS.
I’m talking about NSPS staff, project office, selection of yards, legal fees, etc.  Check the budget estimates and try and find a line item that covers the cost of running the NSPS.

I admit I'm no expert on government budgeting, but I assumed those costs would come from the budgets of the departments doing the work.  At any rate, my point was that regardless of the port or NSPS or any other factors, the budget for the construction of the vessels has remained constant throughout the project thus far.

LOL – so you read the watermarked date too?  A fair amount has been changed in that drawing from the previous version.

There have been two rendered versions of AOPS publically released.  One at 110m, azipods drives, 20 knots, with a huge landing craft on a dedicated davit; the other, a 100m, 17 knot ship as seen in the image you posted.  The first was released in late 2008.  Requirement changes were made in early 2009 with "design changes" (in quotes because in early 2009 the design was very preliminary anyway) made in mid 2009 after which the second image was released.

The image you posted and the changes in it from the previous version have already been discussed at length earlier in this thread.  My point was that nothing substantial has changed since all of that was already discussed.

Every passing day means that the 2007 budget buys less and thus the project staff have to cut more.  To put it in layman’s terms, imagine ordering a 2011 VW Passat for your entire family with the budget for a 2007 VW Passat.  You’re going to have to drop the heated seats, spare tire, etc until eventually you’re down to a single VW Golf and three or four bus passes.

I am currently on a ship file that was orginally priced in 2007.  We've been pricing the ship each year since then to renew the offer.  Each year the price has gone down.  To put it in professional terms, imagine that a 6000 tonne ship is not a VW Passat.  Although to be honest, I'd be surprised if there has been that much inflation in the price of a Passat either.  The economic realities of the shipbuilding industry in the past few years can't be that much different from the car industry.

Besides, what makes you think that the budget released in 2007 would have any effect on the price of a ship designed in 2009?  The inflation clock affecting the design started when the pricing for the design was finished, not when the budget was released.  Provided there is inflation.

Having said that, I am in no way trying to argue that they shouldn't get on this and start construction ASAP.

This is no more the completed design than any previous version. 

Actually, it is.  As I said, there have been two versions released.  The first version was based on a list of desires from the GOC that had not been checked against the budget.  The image was based on a GA, weight estimate, stability calculation, and a parametric price estimate.  It was, in every sense, a development image of an early design created to prove viability.  This should not be considered as a design that was changed for price reasons.  It was a set of requirements that were changed to align with the budget.  It happened to have an associated image that was unfortunately released to the public.

That exercise complete, the second version that was released is a completed and approved class package design.  It has everything from paint schedule to structural drawings to mechanical schematics.  It is not the impression of an artist, it is the technical conclusions of naval architects and marine engineers.

If you want to hold the governments feet to the fire over the differences between an image from a viability study and an image from a class approved design, I can't stop you, but please don't argue that it's a semantic difference.

 

[NavyShooter]

So RC,

You seem to be more in the "know".....any idea when they're going to start building them?

How about crew break-down?  Will it be all Military, or will there be a military/civilian component?

NS

 

[RC]

So RC,

You seem to be more in the "know".....any idea when they're going to start building them?

How about crew break-down?  Will it be all Military, or will there be a military/civilian component?

NS

No idea.  It depends on the NSPS now.  They should be able to start the detail design process (selecting specific suppliers and integrating their equipment) the day the NSPS is signed and start cutting steel 3 to 4 months after that, but I don't know if it will happen that way or not.  As announced previously, the design is sitting on the shelf waiting for the government to be ready for it.

It is a Navy crew with the capacity to carry supernumeraries from other military or civilian departments depending on the mission.  The ice navigator and meteorologist on Arctic missions will likely be civilians, at least until the Navy can get some trained onboard the ships.  There will also be some facility for civilian ILS support onboard on an as needed basis.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I am curious that the prices could be going down for these vessels as the price for steel is rapidly rising.  Or are the (in Passat terms) optional equipment getting pared down and or switched for cheaper options?

 

[RC]

I am curious that the prices could be going down for these vessels as the price for steel is rapidly rising.  Or are the (in Passat terms) optional equipment getting pared down and or switched for cheaper options?

There are a large number of factors on a ship.  Hence the reason it doesn't compare very well with a car.  For instance, in 2007, the demand for medium speed engines, or more specifically for their crankshafts had completely blocked the market.  They simply couldn't be produced quickly enough to meet demand.  Delivery times were running over 12 months and the costs were grossly inflated.  As the world demand plummeted after the fall of 2008, the prices of engines and many other pieces of equipment dropped with the demand, as suppliers went from having huge backorder books to struggling for sales.

Also, the volatility of various currencies currently allows yards to cherrypick equipment from cheaper markets.

This is relatively short term though and I believe a recovery is already underway.  It will likely be a while before prices come back to 2007 levels, since they were caused by a demand bubble, but they will quickly rise from where they are now.

 

[NavyShooter]

Soooo....

The AOPS is linked directly to the NSPS....right? 

So how much slippage in the plan does this mean?

Is the a guestimate as to when the first hull will be delivered?

NS

 

[RC]

Soooo....

The AOPS is linked directly to the NSPS....right? 

So how much slippage in the plan does this mean?

Is the a guestimate as to when the first hull will be delivered?

NS

As far as I know, the RFP for AOPS was scheduled to come out in spring of 2010, before it was delayed by the NSPS.  I would guess under the old process that they would have given 4 months for the yards to evaluate and bid and another 4 months to assess; a process that won't be necessary under the NSPS. 

So if they were to conclude the NSPS today and start the AOPS contract tomorrow, they wouldn't really have lost any ground.  But I don't expect they'll conclude the NSPS until late next spring at the soonest, so I would speculate that it will be delayed by at least 6 months.

My yard would probably be about 30 to 34 months to comfortably build a ship that size with a design in hand.  A Canadian yard will be a little slower, so I'd say 3 to 3.5 years.  If they get on it, that puts us into mid to late 2014.